I have insurance on my car, house contents (as a renter), and health insurance with my job. This is probably considered a “normal” set of coverage that many of our income bracket would keep. What does this coverage really mean? After all, I pay a fair amount of my monthly income to these companies with the promise if something happens, they will cover the bills. The doctor a couple years back informed me of the torn meniscus on my knee. I paid a couple of thousand out of the bill of 9 thousand once the process and surgery was complete. So, the cost I incur is for the purpose of reducing the cost of an incident later. Otherwise stated, the risk has been transferred to the company providing the insurance with the understanding that in return for a premium payment, they cover the risk associated with me. To cover that risk, the company has to maintain an account much larger than mine. My premiums paid were a small portion of the cost of the surgery. (There was also the agreement with the hospital on prices which the cash paying customer doesn’t get, but that’s a discussion for another time.) The insurance company spreads the risk across the population of those covered as the chance of anything happening to one of the group is low, therefore the company can make money by spreading the risk. The higher the population of those covered, the greater the risk and chance that the company will have to pay a claim. This is the downfall of obammacare. By covering everyone, they are guaranteeing an increased risk and force to pay coverage where the ability to cover the claims is insufficient – hence, controls. Once the ability of the insurance company covering claims is sated, the remainder of risk must be placed elsewhere. This is what happened with the FIDC in the ’80’s with the savings and loan debacle. I happened to be near Houston at the time and can attest to streets of houses with numbers written on their windows. The entire back page of the newspaper was listings of houses foreclosed and for about a thousand dollars, one could bid and get a house at a sweet price. I didn’t have a thousand dollars at that time, oh well. What did the federal government do with the risk and resulting costs when the S&L went down the tubes? They used our taxes to fund the bailout. We paid on that bailout from the 80’s to Clinton’s presidency. The payments stopped then allowing that impeached so-in-so to say he had cut costs. No, the loan was repaid and premiums were no longer due.
We’re here again. Go read Barnhardt.biz and here is the link from her page. Instead of having a greater amount of currency to cover any risk incurred by the participating banks, our FDIC has an account of 0.0015 compared to the risk they are taking. For comparison, let’s say I have a car worth a thousand dollars. I am required to insure it per state regulations and desire to reduce risk on myself in case of accident. I pay the insurance company a premium to provide risk coverage in the amount of 1000 dollars on the car itself and 5000 dollars for medical care in case of an accident. The insurance company should have an account of 6000 dollars to cover the risk they are assuming, in an honest world. In our government’s case they have a balance of 6000 x 0.0015 = 9 – that is nine dollars to cover a 6000 dollar risk. How much risk is the FDIC covering? How safe is your money? Remember what the government did last time? They will do the same again. The top bundlers get no charges for their theft (read Corzime) and we the taxpayer are given the tab. So the accounts are raided to steal our money, and then we are taxed in addition to the already excessive rates to cover the loss the theft created.